With our wind powered car we’re throwing down the gauntlet to the big car companies, who aren’t doing nearly enough. They bleat about needing decades and £billions to perfect fuel cell technology – and with that comes the need for big new infrastructure – hydrogen infrastructure – that’ll take decades too.

You know what I think – they’re hooked on burning things, hooked on the internal combustion engine – it’s what they know and what they’ve built their business around. They don’t want to move to cars without engines.

Modern batteries can be charged in 20 minutes or so, if you have a three phase supply – and guess what every petrol station in the UK has – yep that’s right. So the infrastructure for electric cars is already in place.

As Chris says, picture a world where you pull into a garage, plug into one of a row of charging posts, go and have a coffee, take 20 minutes off and drive out with a ‘full tank’. More than possible. Much more than.

Oh and if you use a MWh (millionthousand units of electricity) to produce hydrogen to run a car – you can get about 1,500 miles from it. If you use the same MWh to power an electric car you can get about 5,000 miles. Hydrogen cars will be the new gas guzzlers if they ever take off – using three times as much energy per mile as electric.

20 responses to “More on transport: ‘petrol stations’ of the future”

Very interesting, I am glad I now know how much energy hydrogen takes. Hopefully this will be exposed in time, before there is too much invested, maybe its too late already?

Chris

May 23, 2008 at 7:08 pm

I may be wrong about this (-maybe more modern tech is better?), but a man once told me that you need platinum or palladium for hydrogen fuel cells – very hard, non-corrosive, rare and expensive metals. I read that if you got all the platinum in the world it would barely half fill an olympic sized swimming pool!

But I wasn’t aware of that power difference between electric & hydrogen. That’s staggering. I also agree with what you said about burning fuels. Business & government are as addicted to the burning process as we are as consumers. It’s no wonder electric vehicles have been around in some form for nearly 200 years without anyone really pushing the technology. I mean we could potentially generate electricity in our back gardens – all those miles without making anyone rich or giving billions to public services. Shockwaves galore!!

Oh well, we’ll worry about that ‘problem’ when we get to it!!! 😉

Will

May 24, 2008 at 10:54 am

Why did you decide not to go for the swap-in swap-out battery methodology? Surely this is quicker than waiting around for the recharge. It becomes just like bbq gas cylinders then, although when you swap them out they can be put on to recharge and tested to check if they are ok. The other benefit is that the battery (one of the most expensive parts of the electric car) becomes a service rather than a product, so you can spread the costs like a mobile phone contract.

Business and Social mind set…
But there are individuals out there making it happen anyway! Go Dale and Team Ecotricity!

Simon

May 26, 2008 at 9:37 am

I was going to mention battery swapping as it seems to be the approach Renault Nissan and Project Better Place are going with.

I think its a bit unrealistic to expect people to sit around for 20 minutes waiting for their car to charge back up. You’d also need a lot of parking and charging points for all those cars as I wouldn’t imagine you’d be able to service many cars otherwise.

I would imagine that charging batteries in such a short space of time would put quite a load on the local electricity grid.

Jeff

May 26, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Is there a possibly a little typo/arithmetic error here? Is a unit of electricity not 1kWh, which is 1000 Watt-hours? And a megawatt (MWh) is a million Watt-hours, or 1000 kWh? So 1MWh is 1000 units isn’t it? Or am I wrong?

Darkshine

May 29, 2008 at 7:14 am

Hydrogen-anything cars could never be a cost effective viable alternative, at least not how they are going about it and/or present world economy setup. I was convinced of this the second I saw President Bush standing next to a prototype of one. (laughs, and yes, I am American)

You want a fast car… so I am guessing about 1500 hp output with decent torque for the capability and speeds you are talking about.

Rough math says you are looking at generating a constant of 1.2 MW for sustaining, before considering all the fun things of drag, friction, etc. (Straight est. conversion at 800 watts per hp)

But you have to get there first. Batteries aren’t my forte, but I would think you would need a special one and/or setup to not only hold, but discharge the massive amount of energy you will need to accelerate that quickly.

However, through all that and I am sure the massive problem-solving and brick wall smashing you do with your heads everyday, I do see a point to it all.

It is the learn to run before you learn to walk method. If you can build a sports car, building a more (how did you put it…) “Noddy” drummed down version will be a piece of cake, and only slight variation to the build, with the energy setup going towards longevity, rather than speed.

Keep up the good work, and I do hope you succeed, as I really don’t look forward to paying 7-10 US a gallon here in the states. I’d much rather spend 7-10 bucks on gourmet coffee for my wife and I, have a pleasant conversation for even an HOUR, and then go about our merry way. Hell, throw in a restaurant even, that serves health conscious food, killing two birds with one stone.

Of course, if that scenario plays out, I think Starbucks and all other major coffeehouses/restaurants worldwide will have to start looking over their shoulders for hostile takeovers from the oil companies….(chuckle)

Good morning. The concept of electric charging stations is one that is being seriously considered by BP right now. I was involved in a creative think tank session last October, hosted by Research international of London. BP’s brief was “what is fuel and the re-fueling experience going to be in ten years”.
We came up with around 25 concepts that day, ranging from electric vehicle moped and car pools to dual level fuel stations that incorporated electrical charging posts and ‘chill out and wait cafes’.

I am of the opinion that there is another way, just as you (Dale) know in your heart that wind power is a massive part of the solution to harmonious living of this planet.
We can all comment/rant/pontificate until the cows come home but what is needed is collective thought and action to create a sustainable future.
Dale, you are already leading the charge in “wake the F**K up and take responsibility”, respect to you for having the courage to do that. I can envisage an evolution in ideas that goes beyond anything we can currently imagine.
If you put several, seemingly unconnected people in a room together and give them a problem within minutes they collectively start to create solutions. Those build and grow organically until in no time at all something completely new emerges that answers the question.

No man is an island Dale, you are a great inspiration so orchestrate the setting up of a collective of thinkers and doers. Before the year is out together we will have created concepts that are unimaginable right now, but they will become reality with our focused energy.

@Chris – You raise an interesting point there. Fuel duty. How could the government get their current income from fuel duty, when the fuel is electricity, and could well be electricity that we ourselves generate, and therefore not through the books of a supply company? Real problem that one, but for much later down the road, as you say. We’ve a device on the drawing board that we reckon should generate enough electricity in a typical house situation – to power an electric car for 5,000 clean miles per year. The days when we could hope to be running around in cars we power ourselves are drawing nearer. Cheers.

It is easy and comforting to oversee erroneous information if it serves ones purpose to do so. This is unfortunate as it is very counterproductive. What I refer to is a statement made by Dale. I reiterate:

Dale states:
——————-
Oh and if you use a MWh (million units of electricity) to produce hydrogen to run a car – you can get about 1,500 miles from it. If you use the same MWh to power an electric car you can get about 5,000 miles.
——————-

Consider this:

Assuming that the figure of 1,500 miles above is based on using electrolysis to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen at an efficiency of approx 95% and internal combustion engine to convert hydrogen gas and oxygen to water and useful work (it would be reasonable to assume that this process has a cycle efficiency of around 25 %) the total energy input would have been 1.05MWh and the useful work 0.25MWh.

If instead a hydrogen fuel cell was used to convert the hydrogen to useful work at an efficiency of 90 %, 0.9MWh of useful work would be available which is 3.6 times that of the internal combustion case. Assuming that also the hydrogen car can travel 1,500 miles on 0.25MWh of useful work, this method would allow the car to travel 5,400 miles on the 1MWh input energy.

Furthermore, in order to have the electrical car charged up with 1 MWh of energy stored in the batteries it is reasonable to assume that approximately 1.1MWh of electricity has to be generated at the source (this assumes a battery charging efficiency of 90% but IGNORES electrical grid transmission efficiency of 96% as also the hydrogen gas has to be brought to the fuel station one way or another)

I’m not suggesting that your figures are wrong Dale, nor that the figures I’ve used above are particularly accurate, but I want to highlight that overstating an argument and excluding information only because it doesn’t serve your purpose is the best way to loose an argument and, rather than aiding the movement towards a greener society, you hamper the development by doing so!

@ Darkshine – Thanks for your post, you put a smile on my face. I agree, decent food thrown into the mix (while filling up) would be great. Our car is likely to have 150 kW of motor power (don’t have the torque figure handy, it’s big but I don’t think it’s 1500 big). Battery capacity of somewhere around 50 kWhs – so not too massive. Cheers.

@ John b – Very interesting to hear that BP has it’s thinking cap on John, and thank you for your words of support. The challenge to BP is no less than total, they simply may not be relevant in a world of electric cars, indeed a world post oil. Perhaps this blog site will turn into the kind of collective you have in mind, I’m certainly hoping something like this may come out of it. Thanks again John. Cheers.

@ Chris, Will & Simon – thanks for your thoughts and comments – the next blog post will be based on them (and a few of my own).

Your comment felt a little harsh and presumptive in that you suppose to know my motivation and you ascribe to me a rather cheap one!

I think you may have made at least one fundamental error in arriving at your opinion.

You seem to believe that the numbers I’ve quoted on the relative ‘mpg’ of hydrogen and electric cars – are based on hydrogen being fed to internal combustion engines, which of course would give a poor return.

Whereas the numbers are in fact based on hydrogen being used in a fuel cell.

I hope this answers your suggestion that I’ve skewed the debate to get the outcome I desired. It’s not been skewed and I have no agenda other than the best route to take.

On the numbers themselves you say you don’t challenge mine, but yours look dodgy to me – I’ll elaborate.

You suggest I should be using, or considering, electrolyser efficiencies of 95% and fuel cell efficiencies of 90%. I presume your suggestion is that (with these efficiencies) hydrogen use in cars can be as effective as straight electric use.

In my claim that hydrogen cars will be the new gas guzzlers I rely on figures from Martin Eberhard and he uses 70% for electrolysers and 40% for fuel cells.

But who’s numbers are best supported by real world and peer reviewed work?

And for fuel cell efficiencies check out the European Fuel Cell Forum – they say between 36% and 60%. And being a body dedicated to promoting the use of fuel cells – you might expect them to have it right. Eberhard’s figures are again in the range quoted, your own well outside at 150% of the max.

We also checked The US dept of Energy Hydrogen Program. These guys quote a higher minimum for fuel cells (50%), but same maximum (60%), a long way from your 90% – which is not something that exists in the real world as far as we can see.

Based on that, I’d say your own numbers appear not to stand up to scrutiny very well, and aren’t the right ones to use when comparing hydrogen to electric powered cars. I’d be pleased to discuss that with you in this forum, but let’s not judge each others motives harshly in the process… 🙂

Chris

June 10, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I just stumbled on this. Impressive stuff. I want the performance of Dales wind powered car, with the simplicity & green credentials of an air powered car!!

Chris

June 10, 2008 at 4:14 pm

I just realised that may not make sense what I just said about air being greener than a wind. But what I meant was electric cars will no doubt in part (atleast) be powered by fossil fuels/nuclear. That’s until we sort out our planning regulations to take full advantage of the wind/hydroelectric on offer in the UK.

Staffan

June 11, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Dale, as much as i dislike it, i accept defeat. I guess my lecturer at uni had no idea about actual fuel cell efficiencies, or perhaps he had a secret agenda 😉

@ Jeff – Oops, thanks for pointing that out Jeff – it’s a typo, well more of a silly mistake on my part. I mean the arithmetic is correct, for 1MWh you get three times the miles from an electric car as from a hydrogen one – but that’s 1,000 units of electricity as you say – not 1,000,000. Cheers.

I’ve been watching this battery technology for some time ; it continues to offer hope.

If they pull it off, you’ll have a unit that can store 3-4 days of domestic electricity usage – just the sort of thing for filling the troughs in wind or solar generation.

And as it charges up in about 5 minutes (given a thick enough wire…), it’s pefect for cars – not only does it have more range than Li-ion batteries, it charges faster, removing one of the last few disadvantages of switching from liquid fuel.

Zero Carbonista

This blog is about answers to the big questions - how will we keep the lights on, what kind of cars will we drive (will we drive?) and how will we feed ourselves - in a post oil world, and a world where we can't afford to keep burning things and throwing things away. Energy, Transport and Food are the three big issues.